Divide and Conquer
Significantly Indebted
Adelson Funded study that is iGaming Out Swinging, To Nobody’s Shock
Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson has funded a four-state study that, needless to say, will not come up in favor of iGaming.
The thing about studies is, you can generally get them to support more or less any standpoint on just about any such thing, according to that is included and how you interpret the data. And when it is mega-billionaire Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson funding the findings, you can be sure the scholarly studies will get any which way you want ‘em to.
Adelson No iGaming Fan Himself
It is no news that Adelson for reasons which can be not completely clear towards the rest of the mostly pro-iGaming casino industry is vehemently, adamantly opposed to the entire concept of Internet gambling. He’s been recognized to refer to the very concept as ‘a cancer waiting to occur’ and ‘a toxin which all good people ought to resist,’ and also funded television and print advertisements the 2009 summer towards that end.
Now Adelson’s commissioned poll results on this topic have been obtained and released by Nevada public affairs reporter Jon Ralston. The findings focus on four potentially key states in this matter: California, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky. Kentucky? Who knew. And even seasoned journalist Ralston whom hosts the nightly Las Vegas political news show ‘Face to Face’ has noted on his web log that the findings for the research had been ‘quite startling’; mainly, the rather obviously self-serving leanings towards land gaming and away on the internet form of the same. Namely, legal brick-and-mortar casinos were found to be ‘a method to create revenue for the state,’ with approval ratings including high of 66 percent in Pennsylvania (which includes already proved just as much with their current development in that arena), 61 percent in Kentucky, 57 per cent in California and 54 percent in Virginia.
But the opinions on iGaming were not quite therefore friendly.
State Budget Crises Affect Outlooks
Specially interesting there is that neither Kentucky nor Virginia have any land that is legal at this juncture in time. The support stemmed largely from a desire to help offset state budget deficits, even though land-based casino saturation nationwide is already starting to rear its ugly head and there is more flatlining to come, according to some industry experts for Pennsylvania and California. In reality, the land casino that is latest to go up in Pennsylvania Isle of Capri, situated in southwestern area Farmington had been forced to layoff 15 per cent of its workforce just two months after opening.
Virginia study participants reportedly showed a disdain for ‘Las Vegas-style gaming.’ We guess that’s different than state, ‘Indian casino-style gaming’ or ‘politicians-from-the-suburbs-style video gaming.’ Just What?
Where this supposedly unbiased study gets interesting is with its reported findings on Internet gambling, nevertheless. Because, according for this research, in most four queried states, 3x as much of those who participated did not have positive view of iGaming, by having an average that is overall off 66-22 on the ‘ we do not like it’ part of the fence. Depending on wording (shock, shock), the views shifted slightly, and Kentucky and Virginia participants stated many vehemently that they had been in support of online casino bans, by 63-27 and 55-33 margins respectively.
The poll did not clearly differentiate between general Internet gambling and internet poker per se, however, and before anyone freaks out an excessive amount of by what any of this might potentially mean for the future of state-by-state iGaming being regulated and legalized, remember that, according to poker advocate Marco Valerio back in 2011, 67 percent of New Jerseyans were dead set against online gambling enterprises, and now we see how that played away.
Supreme Court Judge Rejects Challenge to New York Casino Referendum
Tioga Downs lets its feelings be known in no uncertain terms regarding brand new York State’s upcoming casino referendum by voters. (Image source: Ithacajournal.com)
A New York State judge has rejected a challenge to the wording of New York’s upcoming casino referendum, paving the means for voters into the state to vote in the measure in November.
The lawsuit was dismissed by State Supreme Court Justice Richard M. Platkin, who found the legal challenge to be ‘untimely and with a lack of legal merit.’
Delayed Vote Shot Down
That was a big blow to opponents regarding the measure, who had hoped that they might delay a vote, or at least change the wording that would appear on the ballot. The case was brought up by Brooklyn bankruptcy lawyer Eric J. Snyder, who objected towards the language used in the referendum question. On the ballot, the measure is described as ‘promoting task growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting regional governments to lessen property taxes.’
That ended up being the language which had been authorized by the State Board of Elections in which consulted with Governor Andrew Cuomo to craft the measure july. The governor is a supporter that is strong of measure, and crafted a quantity of compromises and relates to different interests in the state in order to make this type of proposal feasible.
However, Snyder and others said that the language being used was unjust. Since the language included suggested good outcomes of the casino expansion, it could unfairly bias the results of the referendum. These issues gained merit that is additional a poll by Siena College found that help for the ballot referendum increased by nine percentage points if the good language was included, compared to when more neutral language was indeed used.
Justice Platkin dismissed these claims, though. He said that Snyder’s lawsuit was filed far after the 14-day screen in which challenges to ballot-language are permitted had passed. That screen began on August 19 or possibly August 23, according to Snyder, though that would have made small difference and the challenge wasn’t made until October 1.
Naturally, the state was pleased that their appropriate arguments were accepted, and that the vote would continue as planned.
‘We’re pleased that Judge Platkin accepted the appropriate arguments which we raised and that the election process can carry on moving forward,’ said Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly.
Opponents Voice Disappointment
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure were let down by predictably your choice.
‘We’re disappointed that the judge opted for to block a genuine discussion on the merits of whether their state gamed the language of the casino amendment to tilt New Yorkers to a yes vote,’ stated a statement by the brand new York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
But Snyder says that he’s not done yet. He plans to get emergency relief from the courts that are appellate and points out that the Board of Elections had the chance to make use of an previous version of the referendum suggested by the state attorney general’s office that did not are the ‘advocacy language.’
‘Ignoring the attorney general’s recommendation, the Board of Elections changed the neutrally worded casino amendment by adding language to gain voter help,’ Snyder told The nyc circumstances.
In the event that measure should pass, it would bring up to seven casino that is new to selected parts of the Empire State. They would join a quantity of existing casinos that are owned and operated by indigenous American groups throughout the area.